The Book of Heavy Metal...Metal or Not?

If you were writing a book on the history of heavy metal. What would be the primary bands you would list from each decade? The 70's, from the 80's, 90's, 00's, etc.

Would you include the proto-metal bands of the late 60's/early 70's? (Sir Lord Baltimore, Free, Grand Funk Railroad, Iron Butterfly, Bloodrock, MC5, etc) Some even list the Beatles "Helter Skelter" as the first proto-metal song, as it was a product of McCartney's deliberate effort to create a sound as loud, heavy and dirty as possible.

Most would not deny the European bands on the 1970's were heavy metal. Bands like Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Motorhead, UFO, etc. What about their American counter parts? Aerosmith, Ted Nugent, Kiss, Blue Oyster Cult, Van Halen, etc.? I would also include AC/DC as one of the biggest metal bands in the world.

Do you consider bands like Quiet Riot, Ratt, Stryper, Motley Crue, Dokken etc. that came out of the 80's California scene to be heavy metal?

Many list Led Zeppelin, Blue Cheer, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath as the earliest heavy metal bands, and the most influential. Some even list Jimi Hendrix as a major influence, though few would actually label Hendrix as a metal artist. Who would you say were the main bands to inspire the first metal movement?

And finally, what about bands like Slipknot, K0RN, etc. Do they deserve a place in a book about the History of Heavy Metal?

Thanks for your answers.
ult

ultmetal wrote:

And finally, what about bands like Slipknot, K0RN, etc. Do they deserve a place in a book about the History of Heavy Metal?

Although I hate those bands with a passion, if you're writing a book on hard rock/heavy metal you've gotta face the facts. Those bands brought a new (and crappy ) sound to rock music in the 90s, and sold millions of records, so I think they should at least get some credit for that.

Quote :

What about their American counter parts? Aerosmith, Ted Nugent, Kiss, Blue Oyster Cult, Van Halen, etc.?

No.

Quote :

And finally, what about bands like Slipknot, K0RN, etc. Do they deserve a place in a book about the History of Heavy Metal?

They would definitely have a place in the book so you could explicitly explain why they are not real metal.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Quote :

What about their American counter parts? Aerosmith, Ted Nugent, Kiss, Blue Oyster Cult, Van Halen, etc.?

No.

So you don't think that the 70's American heavy metal bands deserve a place in such a history book? Why not?

Because those are hard rock bands and not heavy metal ones. But we've said this before so I am not sure why you are posting this topic again really.

If I were writing a book on metal, I'd definitely put a little on those 60's bands that you mentioned, but it wouldn't get a lot of recognition other than those bands helping to set the stage for metal to come. Those bands were not metal to me. If you listen to or read most of the interviews from the older bands like Sabbath, etc, The Beatles were the band that set the stage mostly.

Would I consider Aerosmith, VH, Kiss, BOC, metal? In a sense I would but they were more hard rock to me than metal.

Do I consider bands like Quiet Riot, Ratt, Stryper, Motley Crue,
Dokken etc. that came out of the 80's California scene to be heavy
metal?
Yes when they came out those bands were heavy metal. As time went on though, they mellowed out and just became hard rock acts.

Who would I say were the main bands to inspire the first metal movement? I'd say every band you named inspired the 1st metal movement some way or another. Once Black Sabbath hit though, that was the real birth of Heavy Metal.

And finally, what about bands like Slipknot, K0RN, etc. Do they deserve a place in a book about the History of Heavy Metal? Absolutley NOT! Just because a band has distorted guitars and aggressive vocals doesn't make these bands metal. I don't consider any of those bands metal but modern hard rock. Did they influence kids of today? Probably so, but the media gave these bands their titles of being metal, not the real metalheads.

Back in the 70's bands such as Aerosmith, Ted Nugent and Kiss were considered heavy metal and til this day are labeled metal by rock writers etc, so yes they should be included as should modern bands such as Slipknot, "thebandthatshallneverbementionedagain" etc.

Thanks for the responses so far.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Because those are hard rock bands and not heavy metal ones. But we've said this before so I am not sure why you are posting this topic again really.

Right. I understand your opinion on those bands. However, my question was not if you think they are metal or not, but just do they deserve to be discussed in such a book. I'm not looking for an argument on the genre.

I think including 60's bands that were not metal such as The Who, The Kinks, and Mountain for example, would be important to show the development of the genre as a whole.

manny wrote:

I think including 60's bands that were not metal such as The Who, The Kinks, and Mountain for example, would be important to show the development of the genre as a whole.

I agree. I think the many proto-metal bands are important to the history of the genre.

ultmetal wrote:

manny wrote:

I think including 60's bands that were not metal such as The Who, The Kinks, and Mountain for example, would be important to show the development of the genre as a whole.

I agree. I think the many proto-metal bands are important to the history of the genre.

Absolutely agree. If you don't mention the roots and origins of what later influenced and became heavy metal, it's a great disservice to the music itself. Never-mind TOB's position. Heavy Metal did not just fall from the sky all neatly packaged with an instruction manual saying This is Heavy Metal.

ultmetal wrote:

manny wrote:

I think including 60's bands that were not metal such as The Who, The Kinks, and Mountain for example, would be important to show the development of the genre as a whole.

I agree. I think the many proto-metal bands are important to the history of the genre.

I agree with you both, they should be included, as well as KISS, Aerosmith, Uncle Ted, etc along with the european Metal bands. The 80's needs to include the hari metal bands and pop metal bands.

The 90's need to include slipknot, "the band who shall not be named" etc. They are part of the history even through I don;t like their music.

I also thing the christian metal sub-genre should be cover, covering Stryper as well as Bloodgood, Barren Cross, Deliverance, etc...

Heck, Ultimatum should at least get a paragraph for sticking it out so long! If Anvil can get a movie, Ultimatum deserves a paragraph!

Quote :

Right. I understand your opinion on those bands. However, my question was not if you think they are metal or not, but just do they deserve to be discussed in such a book. I'm not looking for an argument on the genre.

Outside of this board, I don't know anyone these days who actually considers AEROSMITH to be a metal band, so I wouldn't include them at all. And I don't think they've influenced any metal bands to any considerable degree either so I don't think their inclusion is warranted.

Bands like Slipknot seem to still be portrayed by the media as metal so I think that might be worthy of debunking. I couldn't imagine a Rolling Stone or Spin magazine article that would describe AEROSMITH as metal, but I could see them saying that about Slipknot.

GrandNational wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

manny wrote:

I think including 60's bands that were not metal such as The Who, The Kinks, and Mountain for example, would be important to show the development of the genre as a whole.

I agree. I think the many proto-metal bands are important to the history of the genre.

Absolutely agree. If you don't mention the roots and origins of what later influenced and became heavy metal, it's a great disservice to the music itself. Never-mind TOB's position. Heavy Metal did not just fall from the sky all neatly packaged with an instruction manual saying This is Heavy Metal.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

Because those are hard rock bands and not heavy metal ones. But we've said this before so I am not sure why you are posting this topic again really.

Right. I understand your opinion on those bands. However, my question was not if you think they are metal or not, but just do they deserve to be discussed in such a book. I'm not looking for an argument on the genre.

Outside of this board, I don't know anyone in these days who actually considers AEROSMITH to be a metal band, so I wouldn't include them at all. And I don't think they've influenced any metal bands to any considerable degree either so I don't think they're inclusion is warranted.

Bands like Slipknot or "thebandthatshallneverbementionedagain" or whatever seem to still be portrayed by the media as metal so I think that might be worthy of debunking. I couldn't imagine a Rolling Stone or Spin magazine article that would describe AEROSMITH as metal, but I could see them saying that about Slipknot.

Well ToB back in the 70's, both Rolling Stone and Creem magazine labeled Aerosmith a metal band, if they had made their debut in 2003 and not 1973 then I am sure no one on this board would call them a metal band. Aerosmith's influence on the genre, especially in the 80's was huge, Guns n Roses, Motley Crue and alot of metal bands citied Aerosmith as a huge influence on their musical roots.

If I am not mistaken, Testament early on claimed Aerosmith as one of their biggest influences. I remember reading a story in some magazine where one of the band members credited "Rocks" as being one of the defining heavy metal band. Lips from Anvil has always cited Ted Nugent as one of his biggest influences. That was painfully obvious early on.

Again, I am not arguing if they are hard rock or metal. By today's standards, they are hard rock. In the 70's there is no doubt the fans and media called them America's heavy metal band. I just cannot see writing a definitive book on heavy metal and not include what was going on in the U.S. during the 70's. It most certainly is a part of the history, even if people now would no longer label these bands heavy metal.

EDIT: Testament have recorded two Aerosmith songs.

If you were going to write a definitive guide how could you not include the proto metal bands and the earlier bands like Aerosmith, Nugent, KISS, etc. who played such a vital role in influencing the genre.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Outside of this board, I don't know anyone these days who actually considers AEROSMITH to be a metal band, so I wouldn't include them at all. And I don't think they've influenced any metal bands to any considerable degree either so I don't think their inclusion is warranted.

Bands like Slipknot seem to still be portrayed by the media as metal so I think that might be worthy of debunking. I couldn't imagine a Rolling Stone or Spin magazine article that would describe AEROSMITH as metal, but I could see them saying that about Slipknot.

I think plenty of metal bands have been influenced by Aerosmith and whilst they might not be considered metal now, they could easily have been at the time. You can't just dismiss them based on the fact that you don't like them.
Slipknot are definetely a metal band, just because many metal fans do not like them, it doesn't mean that others don't and therefore can't influence the genre and future bands.

Hey all, appreciate all the responses. Don't forget to answer the other question.

What would be the primary bands you would list from each decade? The 70's, from the 80's, 90's, 00's, etc.

ultmetal wrote:

In the 70's there is no doubt the fans and media called them America's heavy metal band. I just cannot see writing a definitive book on heavy metal and not include what was going on in the U.S. during the 70's. It most certainly is a part of the history, even if people now would no longer label these bands heavy metal.

By your logic then you would need to include Slipknot, Limp Bizkit, etc. because that is what the fans and media were saying at one time and it's "part of history".

It just seems like if you are taking that much time talking about things that aren't metal that you're not spending enough time talking about the real thing: what it really is and what it has been doing. Is this book gonna be 300 pages or 3000?

Temple of Blood wrote:

Quote :

Right. I understand your opinion on those bands. However, my question was not if you think they are metal or not, but just do they deserve to be discussed in such a book. I'm not looking for an argument on the genre.

Outside of this board, I don't know anyone these days who actually considers AEROSMITH to be a metal band, so I wouldn't include them at all. And I don't think they've influenced any metal bands to any considerable degree either so I don't think their inclusion is warranted.

Bands like Slipknot seem to still be portrayed by the media as metal so I think that might be worthy of debunking. I couldn't imagine a Rolling Stone or Spin magazine article that would describe AEROSMITH as metal, but I could see them saying that about Slipknot.

I know pleanty of people OUTSIDE OF THIS BOARD who would call Aerosmith Metal, especially their early stuff.

Slpiknot is metal. Big freakin' deal, people consider them metal. I am not a fan, but others are. So what. They can play what they want - if I don't like em, I don't buy them.

Temple of Blood wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

If I am not mistaken, Testament early on claimed Aerosmith as one of their biggest influences. I remember reading a story in some magazine where one of the band members credited "Rocks" as being one of the defining heavy metal band.

I've never heard any of them say that and if you actually pick apart their music, early demos, etc. there is nary an AEROSMITH-ish riff in any of their original material. I'd like to hear which specific musical elements you think required AEROSMITH for inspiration. Their primary influences were clearly METALLICA and SLAYER.

BTW, who said I don't like AEROSMITH? You guys sure do assume a lot with your straw man arguments and knee-jerk reactions.

I do not think anyone said you don't like Aerosmith. And been influenced by a band does mean you want to be a carbon copy of your influences.

ultmetal wrote:

Hey all, appreciate all the responses. Don't forget to answer the other question.

What would be the primary bands you would list from each decade? The 70's, from the 80's, 90's, 00's, etc.

70's - Sabbath, Zepplin, KISS, Aerosmith, Scorps, UFO, Priest, Deep Purple, Ted Nugent, Thin Lizzy, AC/DC

80's - Maiden, Priest, Scorps, KISS, Metallica, Slayer, Aerosmith, RATT, Megadeth, Stryper, Bloodgood, Deliverance, Barren Cross, Skid Row, Def Leppard, Saxon, Anthrax, King's X, White Lion, Whitesnake, AC/DC, Mercyful Fate, W.A.S.P, DIO, Ozzy, etc, etc

90's - Skid Row, Metallica, KISS - ugh.... needs some help on this one....

00's - Maiden, KISS, Priest, Sabbath, Heaven & Hell, The Darkness, Bullet For My Valentine

Are you planning on writing a book, Ult?

If so, I'd say yeah, you'd kinda have to mention the "proto-metal" and hard rock of the '60s and '70s, even if you only did it as part of an introductory piece, since even though those bands may not have been "metal" per se, they definitely were the "building blocks" for what was to come later.

As for the '80s, I'd throw everything into the pool. Trad-metal, hair metal, thrash, crossover, grindcore, death metal, etc., etc....touch on everything. (It would be a LONG book. Haha.)

When you got to the '90s I'd say you'd have to give the K0rn-feds a mention at the very least. Like it or not, they did keep the "hard music" (Gawd, I hate that term!) alive during the genre's alleged "dormancy" during the "dark times." (haha)

Ian Christe's book THE SOUND OF THE BEAST: THE COMPLETE HEADBANGING HISTORY OF HEAVY METAL did a pretty great job at covering a little bit of everything that fell under the "heavy metal" umbrella.

Keep in mind however, that no matter HOW thorough you might try to make such a book, you're never going to please everybody. Someone will inevitably ask, "Hey, what about (name of band)? You forgot them!"

OK ToB who would you include in your book of metal?